"Man's greatest discovery is not fire, nor the wheel, nor the combustion engine, nor atomic energy, nor anything in the material world. It is in the world of ideas. ..."

- Mr. Jennings. Brewster Jennings & Associates.

July 2007: Just like there's is still a difference in the degree of anonymity between a swiss and off-shore account one also exist between a 'deal'(Saudis) and an 'aid'(Israel) package. The multi-billion dollar question is what are we getting in return for the weapons - oil<which was suppressed from basically ALL news feeds>.

http://www.forbes.com/topstories/home/2007/07/28/saudi-arms-iran-biz-cx_pm_0728armsdeal.html

July 1, 2007: The formality of an announced DoJ investigation... which even BAE execs do openly acknowledge.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/baefiles/story/0,,2102237,00.html

http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2007/08/09/bae-brushes-doj-investigation-says-its-business-usual.html

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/engineering/article2009356.ece

http://www.guardian.co.uk/baefiles/story/0,,2111928,00.html

June 2007: The finding that Prince Bandar did indeed receive payments on an arms trade

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2007/06/mil-070607-irna01.htm

Original post: April 12, 2007

Blowback! The Vortex(of corruption) at Plame's periphery.

The deal that intersected the fate of Ms. Wilson was one made in arms-for-oil. The byline of the scripted deal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Yamamah) was dated back to the 80s
(http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/article1415469.ece) and was punctuated with a corruption investigation in 2003. An investigation that was abruptly dropped...

The Ultimatum

'The Saudis warned that they would halt all payments on the contract and cut diplomatic and intelligence ties with Britain unless the criminal investigation was stopped.'

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1596693.ece

'The Saudis, key allies in the Middle East, have also threatened to cut intelligence co-operation with Britain over Al-Qaeda. They have repeated their threat that they will terminate payments on a defence contract that could be worth £40 billion and safeguard at
least 10,000 British jobs.'

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article641360.ece

Deny it if you must!.. But the nations of Arabia have a huge say and dictate the affairs of our nation and that of our allies in matters of the highest order. If history is any indication i.e. the oil shock of the 70s, they do follow through on their ultimatums that take the form of embargoes if warnings and political threats go unheeded. So the burning question is in the interest of protecting our financial interests(i.e. free-markets, democratic capitalism); our interests in security(including our military's ability to project power); in our nation's interests in oil and the interest of our addiction to it, what exactly did the Administration contemplate doing? What did they do to protect themselves from receiving the same ultimation from the nations of Arabia?

More importantly, what other priorities were they protecting with their actions? What are the other undisclosed accounts associated with oil and possibly an illegal war and occupation of a foreign country in the Middle-East were there that intersected the points of conflictings interests and corruption that these oil deals have helped procured?

In the war against terrorism any association of financial aid and support for terror can reflect very negatively upon the nations that started and are fighting this war from a moral high plain. The Administration knew full-well the extent of political liability as to where the money trail of their Arabian counterparts could lead to and the BAE arms-for-oil scandal was just that example they did want themselves to become if not made into. The ends justified the means even to debilitate an entire intelligence network within the CIA of which Ms. Wilson was part of. She was indeed fair game!... even in terms of colatteral damage and unintended consequences and it all started in June 2003.

The goal was to legitimize the questioning of her status eventhough they might have known full-well that she was indeed covert. The goal was to exploit the weakest link of her intelligence cover inorder to legitimately raise the "fact" of her "overtness," and that she wasn't covert. However it was just as important how and who was the best position to initite the ploy. Who better than one of their every own whom they had appointed into the State department's in-house intelligence bureau. Whom better to produce a piece of document called the 'inr' to link her name with her agency and department she was working for.

Ms. Wilson had testified that she could name with one hand of who knew her status. None of the Administration officials had permission to disclose her status. Representative J.  Sarbanes knew that Administration officials would have to have wanted her identity exposed. The diligence(time and money) of the intelligence agency had measures in place to safeguard her status. Only through a willful act and intent and the series of subsequent actions that followed would have lead toward the end of exposing her identity would have revealed who she
really was... approximately 20 disclosures in all toward the end of compromising her position within the intelligence network.

Ms. Wilson was fair game, a victim of a deliberate plan carried out by the Administration.